rowpotdroid
You call this Star Trek more like Star Soap with all the social engineering that the producers are attempting. Unfortunately Hollywood and the Networks always manage to:A) Cancel good productions
B) Let unwatchable garbage continue forever until the cast members are even sick of doing the show.The Original Star Trek at the beginning was canceled due to the social norms were restrictive to the concepts of women in space let alone being in positions of authority. The interracial aspects the 60's were full of racial segregation and to see a black women on a space ship was hard to take. What saved Star Trek came after the show was canceled. The Apollo Space Missions to the Moon. This event not only caused a resurgence among the general public appetite for anything space oriented. Even the auto industry's line of cars that model new cars with anything looking space age. Star Trek had a simple plot taken from an existing genre where they got more than half the Star Trek cast from, they were westerns. They followed a simple logical story line that exist even today. The Good guys and the Bad Guys. People love to watch good guys win. They don't like to mess it up with complicated social issues that appear polarized with the public. Doing so tends to kill off interest and viewership in any production. Also the scripts writing was kept simple. Where as if you see any production today they replace action with more words or Talk till you blue in the face. Discovery cannot survive as a production by trying to impress with just Special effects because viewers are more loyal to the story line that most Hollywood producers think. I watched the first 6 episodes but stopped it was boring and way over the top on jamming social issues that should have nothing to do with Star Trek. BTW I found I didn't like the new Klingon's makeup. I'm hoping eventually loyal fans and producers of the original series will wait till this abomination is canceled and they fix it. Until then I'm done with Star Trek I can always watch reruns.
jenniferclaerr
CBS . . . You do realize, don't you, that some of us have actually watched TOS, and the Next Generation, and Deep Space Nine and Voyager and Enterprise, and the movies, etc? This dark, dystopian, hellish series doesn't resemble the Star Trek I know and love in any way. It becomes so dark at some points that they actually have to go to the mirror universe and join the Terran Empire to make it make any sense. This was painful to watch. And I've been watching Star Trek since it was in syndication in the 1970s, and the only reason I started watching that late is because I was born in 1968. The Klingons aren't Klingons anymore. I had a hard time when they revamped the Klingons completely in 1979, but after a while I understood the reason for the changes made. Now the Klingons are just insane monsters, not a noble warrior race. All the characteristics they had in the movies and in the series from Next Generation onward are simply absent. Many of the characters have significant moral failings, and the characters do not have strong relationships with one another as they do in previous versions of Star Trek. They have this "spore drive" which is basically a magical way to travel instantly anywhere you want to go, but they still can't resolve their conflict with the Klingons.STD is aptly named; it's like a sexually transmitted disease. In other words, painful.The sound people on Pahvo look almost identical to the spores being used for the spore drive. This smacks of laziness.And it also violates canon in many instances. Harry Mudd's wife, Stella, was not young and beautiful. She was an elderly nag when Harry Mudd was approximately the same age as appears to be in STD. In fact, he had an android version of her made simply so he could tell her to shut up. So if you wanted to include Harry Mudd in the series and give him a young, beautiful wife, you simply should have had him divorce Stella and marry someone else.Sarek had always seemed a bit cold. He did, after all, have an 18-year rift with his son Spock over his decision to join Starfleet. But in STD, Sarek seems like a child abuser. He takes a traumatized child, and instead of helping her to heal from the horror of her parents' murder, he pushes her to succeed in school and criticizes her emotional reaction upon being forced to watch scenes of the massacre, instead of protecting her the way he was supposed to. There's nothing illogical about providing proper care to a developing child, or recognizing that a human being is a human being. Captain Lorca seems to be deficient in many respects. For example, he chooses a mutineer as the go-to person to run important missions for the Discovery. At one point, Michael Burnham (why give the female protagonist a male name) actually stands idly by while Lorca is killed, then saves the mass-murdering emperor just because she reminds her of the captain she failed to save. Michael has an argument with Ash Tyler, her erstwhile boyfriend, because she simply can't come to the terms that he was possessed by Voq when he tried to harm her. It's just one of many scenes that seems childish in the extreme. These people can't even resolve basic interpersonal conflicts. If you do come back with a second season, and you want to keep calling it Star Trek, you'll have to do better than this ratings fodder.
Mklangelo
In the entire pantheon of Star Trek spin offs, this one started off impresively and had me enthused. But then something happened. I started to notice a few things. Let me explain. You know how some of the shows that last a few years, start strong and then the quality of the writing drops off and subsequently so does the audience? Well, in Star Trek Discovery, that quality drop happened around the middle of the first season for me. From the amateurish fight scene choreography in Episode 13 to the increasingly silly character Saru who is the commander of the USS Discovery. The makup just doesn't quite do the job. And the feet? The characters makup and design is, well, just plain riduculous. The makup and design of the Klingons is not well concieved either. The thick voices seem fake and put on. They do not allow this viewer to suspend disbelief which is critical for a sci-fi offering. The technology of the Star Trek Universe is a key player in it's success and when these characters talk tech, it's just pretend and it shows. It's obvious that the actors are simply spouting gibberish about "Spore Drives" and such. There is an interesting reference to Paul Stamets in the charactor of the same name in Lieutenant Paul Stamets. (The real Mr. Stamets is an american born mycologist and proponent of bioremediation and the use of medicinal fungii. There is a magic mushroom fan in the writing crew.)
Perhaps this fall off for me had something to do with the exit of Brian Fuller, who created the "universe" that these charactors inhabit. I'm not sure but as a lifelong fan of the original show and it's spin-offs, this one fell from grace around the middle of the season or sooner.
When I first read this collection of reviews for this show, I saw an absolute RASH of 1 and 2 ratings. I now see a rash of 10 ratings. So I can plainly see that CBS All Access has deployed their minions in order to maintain the ridiculous 7.4 rating. I see the scores of low ratings for this POS and the 7.4 is obviously a sham.
